dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
320

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Puny upstream.

OK, other than in the PR blurbs... where is this actually significant? Will it give them more capacity for HD channels to use less compression and raise PQ? (Now that would be significant.)
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit

34764170 (banned)

Member

To improve the situation with low upstream speeds for cable Internet. DOCSIS 3.1 is long overdue.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
No, it will however help with the anemic internet upload speeds.

To have more channel space they need to move to FTTH, then they can push 10Gbit over it easily giving you enough space for 4K/QFHD channels and ridicules internet speed.

K3SGM
- -... ...- -
Premium Member
join:2006-01-17
Columbia, PA

K3SGM to GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

Will it give them more capacity for HD channels to use less compression and raise PQ? (Now that would be significant.)

No, they are talking specifically about the upstream path for cable modems, and trying to squeeze more capacity into the 5-42MHz existing space they are already using for it.

It won't give you more TV channels, DOCISS 3.1 will only prevent you from losing some of the TV channels you already have, or forcing them to be further compressed.

If they are forced to use anything above 54MHz they are eating up regular In-Band channels which are in the 54-870MHz range(1000MHz on some systems), and used for Video, VoIP Telephone and Downstream Internet.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl to 34764170

Premium Member

to 34764170
Yes, I know (as well as it being restated in the the news blurb). My point is though, what percentage of customers have any use at all for more upstream than they already have? 1%? 2? (Outside of these few, nobody's even pushing the existing "paltry" upstream speed limit.) It may currently be "anemic" by comparison, but by and large it doesn't matter anywhere outside of the comparison with those other mentioned providers. Hence, nothing more than a PR "war". And just another reason to keep raising prices.

On the other hand, every [TV] customer would like better PQ.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

1 recommendation

mackey

Premium Member

said by GlennLouEarl:

My point is though, what percentage of customers have any use at all for more upstream than they already have? 1%? 2?

It depends on who's upstream speeds you're talking about. If you're talking Comcast then yes I would agree with you. However, those of us stuck with Time Warner are in dire need of faster upstream speeds. Wanna try some new 'cloud' service? Not gonna happen. Offsite backups? Prepare to mail a thumb drive or external HDD.

/M
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Crystal Lake, IL

dfxmatt to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
It doesn't matter what the percentage is, because nobody has that choice at the moment. People can't even explore what they can possibly do with it because upstream is significantly restricted.

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON

pnjunction to GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

to GlennLouEarl
I know many people that upload things to sites like dropbox. It's a couple of taps on new smartphones to upload all camera pics to dropbox, and it's a smart thing to do since phones can get lost or die resulting in data loss. It's also very slow to do right now with 1 MBps upload.

And I know we're cynical here but if you just look at fixed speeds prices have been dropping in my experience (25mbps for $40 here these days). Nobody is putting a gun to people's heads and making them upgrade to higher speeds instead of staying slower and paying less. The lowest tier is unlikely to drop below $25, but now that tier is 6-7 Mbps instead of 0.5 Mbps around here.

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
Maybe this is a chicken and the egg scenario, maybe once more people have more symmetrical speeds, applications that utilize more upload will become more prevalent.

I always want more upload, I'm lucky enough to have FiOS though.
It's far from a useless upgrade.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl to pnjunction

Premium Member

to pnjunction
As a rule, we don't have slower/cheaper tiers available. I can get either FiOS or Comcast. The slowest tiers available are around 15/5, and the cheapest prices are around $70-75/mo.

Yes, I know there are many who do presently use their upstream for stuff and could use something faster. Still, they are--by far--the exception, not the rule. Now, if I had my way, every ISP would do what Google does with Fiber--one tier at one price and you simply go as fast as the [real, actual] network allows, and one tier that's rather speed-restricted but it's practically free so who cares. In other words, I'd like the price to reflect the cost. I'll likely "retire" from the Internet before I ever see that happen around here.

CosmicDebri
Still looking for intelligent life
join:2001-09-01
Lake City, FL

CosmicDebri to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

Yes, I know (as well as it being restated in the the news blurb). My point is though, what percentage of customers have any use at all for more upstream than they already have? 1%? 2? (Outside of these few, nobody's even pushing the existing "paltry" upstream speed limit.) It may currently be "anemic" by comparison, but by and large it doesn't matter anywhere outside of the comparison with those other mentioned providers. Hence, nothing more than a PR "war". And just another reason to keep raising prices.

On the other hand, every [TV] customer would like better PQ.

I am on Comcast in Florida and we have horrendous, nay pathetic upload speed. Yes they doubled our download to 50 mb/s but the upload is still 2.56???? wtf is wrong with this picture??


GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Nothing is wrong with the picture. As I said, only a teeny-tiny percentage of customers give a damn about upload speed. Also, most of them would barely use more than a tenth of that download speed.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by GlennLouEarl:

Nothing is wrong with the picture. As I said, only a teeny-tiny percentage of customers give a damn about upload speed. Also, most of them would barely use more than a tenth of that download speed.

Just keep repeating yourself like a broken record and that will make it more true.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Asked a simple question, gave a simple answer. Still true... never said it was "right" (that's the way cable ISPs are & have always been).

Now, if you want to see it done "right", then look at Google Fiber.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned) to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

As a rule, we don't have slower/cheaper tiers available. I can get either FiOS or Comcast. The slowest tiers available are around 15/5, and the cheapest prices are around $70-75/mo.

15/5 is the slow speed, although 5 is quite a bit higher than the avg connection speed but that is FiOS. There shouldn't be anything less than that. $70 - $75 for an Internet connection?! of what speed? that is nuts.
said by GlennLouEarl:

Yes, I know there are many who do presently use their upstream for stuff and could use something faster. Still, they are--by far--the exception, not the rule.

When so many North American broadband connections are still at pathetically low levels of 2Mbps or less for upstream then I'd disagree. As connection speeds on the avg go up then I'd tend to agree but the avg connection speeds are still too slow.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

I just told you what speed. Check their websites (of course, there are some regional differences--what I referenced was for around here).

I'm talking about "typical", not "average". The typical person almost never uses more than 5/1. If you've got a house with 5 people where no more than 3 of them are expected to be "online" simultaneously, then you typically need only 15/3 (fluff it up to 15/5 if you like). That's life in the typical information superhighway lane.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by GlennLouEarl:

I just told you what speed. Check their websites (of course, there are some regional differences--what I referenced was for around here).

So $70 - $75 for 15/5? Crazy. But looking at their site that includes TV service.

Where I am I am paying $45 CDN ($43 USD) for 25/2 cable Internet (no TV).
said by GlennLouEarl:

I'm talking about "typical", not "average". The typical person almost never uses more than 5/1. If you've got a house with 5 people where no more than 3 of them are expected to be "online" simultaneously, then you typically need only 15/3 (fluff it up to 15/5 if you like). That's life in the typical information superhighway lane.

What is typical or average is not the same as it was a few years ago. If people didn't use this stuff the providers wouldn't be upgrading their speed tiers across the board. 1Mbps up nowadays for the typical/average joe is too slow.
34764170

34764170 (banned) to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

Asked a simple question, gave a simple answer. Still true... never said it was "right" (that's the way cable ISPs are & have always been).

Now, if you want to see it done "right", then look at Google Fiber.

Except ISPs are increasing their upstream speeds and they would not do that if practically no one used the bandwidth.

Well of course Google Fiber is the way to do things right, but we live in North America. So it is unlikely that would happen in most areas. I could only dream of the sane people of the world would rise up to ensure North America has decent Internet connections pretty much everywhere. That would make too much sense though.
34764170

34764170 (banned) to MovieLover76

Member

to MovieLover76
said by MovieLover76:

Maybe this is a chicken and the egg scenario, maybe once more people have more symmetrical speeds, applications that utilize more upload will become more prevalent.

I always want more upload, I'm lucky enough to have FiOS though.
It's far from a useless upgrade.

Well most consumer Internet connections will not be symmetrical or close to it, but it is very useful to remove the ridiculously asymmetrical speeds all too common to cable as one such common scenario. As an example I just got off of a cable 18 / 512Kb tier and upgraded to 25 / 2. The problem with 18 / 512kb is it is enough upstream to download at full speed and nothing else. Now I can actually web browse and other things and not have an impact on downloading. Now I can actually use Skype and other similar video related services.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

What client are you using? Windows XP? If the line quality is good (minimal or no packet loss), I believe other clients (Linux, Mac OSX and Vista+) will automatically increase the RWIN so that there are fewer ACKs. Fewer ACKs require less upstream bandwidth to keep the stream flowing.

Of course I do agree that 512Kbps upstream is very slow. I'm trying to think back over the years and I don't believe I ever had 512Kbps up. My first HSI plan circa Y2K was 512Kbps down and 128Kbps up. Over the years it went to 1.5/256Kbps, 3/768, 8/1, 12/2 and currently 15/3 with power boost. The boost will push data at me sometimes up to 100Mbps but it quickly settles somewhere between 20-30. Upstream is always around 3.xx.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl to 34764170

Premium Member

to 34764170
Where you are isn't where I am, and both Verizon and Comcast do it pretty much the same everywhere else to the south of you. I'm so happy for you that your location is delightfully fast and cheap--congrats!

But since I am where I am ("the states"), and I don't plan to drop service in 6 months, nor want to get 1 or 2 other services in order to make the one I want to have cost a little less (meaning I don't want to pay Verizon and Comcast $150/mo in order to save $10 or $15 a month on Internet service), I guess I'm stuck with what's available here (along with some hundreds of millions of others). Oh, well... too bad, so sad.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Feel free, though, to continue ignoring reality.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

said by GlennLouEarl:

Oh, well... too bad, so sad.

Ya, sucks to be you.
said by GlennLouEarl:

You really don't know what you're talking about. Feel free, though, to continue ignoring reality.

I could say the same to you.
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Bengie25 to CosmicDebri

Member

to CosmicDebri
said by CosmicDebri:

said by GlennLouEarl:

Yes, I know (as well as it being restated in the the news blurb). My point is though, what percentage of customers have any use at all for more upstream than they already have? 1%? 2? (Outside of these few, nobody's even pushing the existing "paltry" upstream speed limit.) It may currently be "anemic" by comparison, but by and large it doesn't matter anywhere outside of the comparison with those other mentioned providers. Hence, nothing more than a PR "war". And just another reason to keep raising prices.

On the other hand, every [TV] customer would like better PQ.

I am on Comcast in Florida and we have horrendous, nay pathetic upload speed. Yes they doubled our download to 50 mb/s but the upload is still 2.56???? wtf is wrong with this picture??


You think that's bad. My ISP has a horrible connection to most speed sites. I can get my rated speed from almost any real web site, but these speed test sites seem to be bad.


»speedof.me/show.php?img= ··· 1693.png

I have 50/50 fiber. I can maintain a 10ms ping many game servers while uploading and/or downloading 45Mb/s. But all of these speed test server.. pffft. I even get 20Mb/s uploads to Youtube and 48Mb/s from Steam.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

As a rule, we don't have slower/cheaper tiers available. I can get either FiOS or Comcast. The slowest tiers available are around 15/5, and the cheapest prices are around $70-75/mo.

Apparently you don't know how to haggle. They only advertise that tier because of the 10,000%+ markup on it. All ISPs can and will give you a slower and cheaper connection if you call them up.

But you are moronically wrong about upload speed not mattering, even things that only millions of people use like play online games or video chat depend so much more on your upload then your download that it isn't even funny.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

One of my favorite quotes (paraphrased):
J: "Is being a moron like being high all the time?"

K: "No, it's like constantly being right."